[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sumit Mondal vs State Of Odisha & Anr on 17 February, 2026
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Feb-2026 15:37:12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.2753 of 2025
Sumit Mondal .... Petitioner (s)
Mr. Nityabrata Behuria, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Anr. .... Respondent (s)
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
Mr. Buddhimanta Swain, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
Order No. ORDER
03. 17.02.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Though this matter was not listed today, on being mentioned, the
same is taken up through Special Notice at 4.45 PM.
3. Pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in CRLMC No.2753
of 2025, the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 are present in
Court through virtual mode.
4. In this CRLMC, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the F.I.R.
bearing Umerkote P.S. Case No.318 of 2024 corresponding to T.R.
Case No.40 of 2024 pending in the court of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under POCSO Act,
Nabarangpur and the proceedings arising therein.
5. Heard the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2 through virtual
mode.
6. During course of interaction, both the Petitioner and the Opposite
Party/ complainant state that both of them have got married and
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
they are living their conjugal life peacefully. Hence, continuance
of the criminal proceeding in the aforesaid case will destroy their
family life and lead to abuse the process of law. They further state
that, in the meantime, they have settled their discord on the
intervention of the village gentries. A joint affidavit to that effect
has been filed by both the parties.
7. Perused the joint affidavit for amicable settlement filed by the
parties wherein the Opposite Party No.2/complainant has stated
that since the dispute between her and the Petitioner, in the
meantime, has amicably been settled on the interference of the
village gentries, she does not want to proceed with the matter and
she has no objection in any manner whatsoever, if the entire
prosecution lodged by her against the Petitioner is quashed.
8. It is well settled that although the offences under Sections
376(2)(n), 294 and 506 of the I.P.C. and Section 6 of the POCSO Act
are non-compoundable, the High Court, in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is not denuded of
power to quash the criminal proceeding where the dispute is
essentially private and matrimonial in nature and the parties have
voluntarily arrived at a genuine and complete settlement. The
underlying object of such exercise is to secure the ends of justice
and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Where the
continuation of the criminal proceeding, despite an amicable
settlement, would serve no fruitful purpose and would only
perpetuate bitterness between the parties, the High Court would
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
be justified in interdicting the prosecution, particularly when the
informant herself has unequivocally expressed her consent for
such quashing.
9. Considering the contents of the joint affidavit filed by the
Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2/ informant and following
the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of
Punjab and another1, and two other reported cases of this Court in
Lokanath @ Anadi Sethi and four others v. State of Orissa and
four others2, and Sansuri alias Khageswar Lenka and another -
vrs.- State of Orissa and Another3, this Court is of the opinion that
no useful purpose will be served in allowing such proceedings to
continue against the Petitioner in the aforesaid case as it will only
lead to abuse the process of law.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considerations, the
CRLMC is allowed. Accordingly, the F.I.R. bearing Umerkote P.S.
Case No.318 of 2024 corresponding to T.R. Case No.40 of 2024
pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Court under POCSO Act, Nabarangpur stands
quashed. Consequently, the entire proceeding against the
Petitioner in the aforesaid case is quashed. The court concerned on
receipt or production of the certified copy of this order, shall do
well to drop the aforesaid proceeding against the Petitioner.
11. This CRLMC is, accordingly, disposed of.
(2012) 10 SCC 303
2014 (II) OLR 29
3 2014 (II) OLR 452
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
12. The joint affidavit filed by the Petitioner and the Opposite Party
No.2/ Informant shall form a part of the record.
13. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
14. Personal appearance of the Petitioner and the Opposite Party No.2
is dispensed with.
( Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
B.Jhankar
